Limitation and natural justice bar condonation of delay without notice to the respondent in a time-barred appeal.

Declaration forms were held not rejectable merely because the written purchase order was executed after supply, where the supplies were made under an oral contract later reduced to a confirmatory writing; the point was answered against the assessee on the basis of an earlier decision. On limitation, the note states that once an appeal is time-barred, the respondent acquires a procedural right that cannot be defeated without notice and a fair hearing. Condonation of delay without notice was treated as contrary to natural justice, and the respondent was entitled to object when appearing.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether declaration forms could be rejected merely because the written purchase order was executed after supply, where the supplies were made under an oral contract later reduced to writing as a confirmatory order. (ii) Whether delay in filing the second appeal could be condoned without notice to the respondent, and whether the respondent could object to such condonation at the hearing.

Issue (i): Whether declaration forms could be rejected merely because the written purchase order was executed after supply, where the supplies were made under an oral contract later reduced to writing as a confirmatory order.

Analysis: The issue was treated as covered by an earlier decision of the Court on materially similar facts. On that basis, the Court followed the earlier reasoning and answered the question against the assessee's contention.

Conclusion: The question was answered in the negative.

Issue (ii): Whether delay in filing the second appeal could be condoned without notice to the respondent, and whether the respondent could object to such condonation at the hearing.

Analysis: The Court held that once an appeal is barred by limitation, the respondent acquires a valuable right that cannot be affected without a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Condonation of delay without notice to the respondent was held to offend natural justice, and the respondent was held entitled to re-agitate the issue after appearance.

Conclusion: The delay could not be condoned without notice to the respondent, and the respondent could object to the condonation at the hearing.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered against the revenue on the procedural question of condonation of delay, while the first question was also answered adversely to the assessee on the basis of the earlier decision.

Ratio Decidendi: A delay in filing an appeal cannot be condoned behind the back of the opposite party once limitation has created a vested procedural right, because condonation without notice violates natural justice and the right to be heard.

---